I am a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, at Stanford, and the Cullen Professor of Economics at the University of Houston. I am also a research professor at the German Institute for Economic Research Berlin. My specialties are Russia and Comparative Economics, and I am adding China to my portfolio. I have written more than 20 books on economics, Russia and comparative economics. I blog at paulgregorysblog.blogspot.com.

Is President Obama Truly A Socialist?

Pew Research finds that sixty percent of Americans respond negatively to “socialism.” It is clear why President Barack Obama must avoid that label. Words are important. Political candidates who control the language of political discourse win elections.

Most of our elites would certainly not entertain the question: “Is Obama a socialist?” Only irresponsible fanatics carelessly throw around such epithets, they say. Polite circles ignore such goofiness.

As someone who has professionally studied and written about comparative economics, capitalism, and socialism for almost fifty years, the reticence to probe the core beliefs of a political leader seems odd. The question is perfectly legitimate in both an academic and political context as long as we define terms and place the discussion in proper context.

By “socialist,” I do not mean a Lenin, Castro, or Mao, but whether Obama falls within the mainstream of contemporary socialism as represented, for example, by Germany’s Social Democrats, French Socialists, or Spain’s socialist-workers party?

By this criterion, yes, Obama is a socialist.

The socialist parties of Europe trace their origins to reform Marxism. After Marx’s death in 1883, Europe’s Marxists rejected the Bolsheviks’ call for socialist revolution and worked within the political system for Marxist goals. Marxists, such as Karl Leibknecht, August Bebel, Paul Lafargue, Leon Blum, and others, formed the socialist parties that we know today. Most emerged from the trade-union movement, and they retain close ties with organized labor today, as does Obama’s Democrat Party.

Whereas, the eighteenth century liberalism of John Locke and Adam Smith gave us our constitution and limited government, Marxism provided the intellectual foundations of the European welfare state.

The European socialists have their welfare state. Even their conservative opponents no longer question the “social state,” despite rising concern about its affordability. In the United States, we are fighting the battle of the welfare state, and we do not know what the outcome will be.

The European welfare state takes one half of national output to provide state health care, pensions, extended unemployment benefits, income grants, and free higher education. Failed nationalizations taught European socialists to leave enterprise in private hands and coerce it through taxation and regulation to contribute to what the state deems the “social welfare.”

The November 2011 Declaration of Principles of the Party of European Socialists (PES) summarizes the European socialist agenda. I condense its main points and compare them with Obama’s statements and legislative initiatives:

PES: The welfare state and state-provided universal access to education and health care are society’s great achievements.

Obama: Favors universal access to health care and associated benefits as a critical expansion of the welfare state.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

No, only myopic ideological stooges attempt to pass off incredulous nonsense as impartial and thoughtful insight.

I know this article is old and its premises proved extraneous if not flat-out false time and time again but, surprise! Its still a “go-to” hypocritical, ad hominem attack adored by the right. I just haaad to say something! But alas, pahcker sums it up beautifully and cogently! So I decided to just say, nicely done sir….or madam.

This is where pahcker and illogical mike make there mistake. 1. All Socialists support welfare. 2. Barack Obama supports welfare. 3. Therefore Barack Obama is a Socialist. Is in fact correct. I am not going to get hung up on the semantics of what the definition is but rather focus on the actions of this administration lead my Obama. But what I took from this article is that the contemporary socialist is = to leave enterprise in private hands and coerce it through taxation and regulation to contribute to what the state deems as the “social welfare.” Hence a welfare state. And Francis… we have been saying this since his first days of his first campaign.

This is why France, Germany and Spain were mentioned ~ which we all see how well that is going for them, and will also be our fate as long as we have deadheads like you two wanting to parse the shit out of the meanings (like all liberals) in order to deflect from the truth that whatever Obama is doing under whatever you want to label it, IS NOT GOOD AND WILL NOT WORK for anyone else but himself and his elite. What would you elitist intellectuals call it then? Go ahead, grasp at something you can explain away from it being most closely related to Socialism. I will enjoy the entertainment of your contortionist exercise. And if you use Democracy as your defense, then you have no idea what the hell that even is because if you did you would know that mob rule is no better than Socialism plus it is not even what is being practiced in our current governance. The truth? The reality of our governance can only be described plainly and simply as corruption. There is no functioning two party system, there is no honorable election process and ruling from the bench has in affect made the constitution obsolete.

Alex, deny the statistics on poverty and employment rates under every progressive president and specially this one, please – I love to watch stupidity in action. Obama has NOT grown the middle class – just the opposite. How can you say Obama is not cut from the socialist cloth when you can see Obama tripled the national debt over welfare programs and bailouts to manipulate private financial and manufacturing enterprises? Actually, Obama is worse than a Socialist, he is a corrupt Socialist who capitalizes on crisis after crisis for his private and political benefit. Much like every politician but what is astounding is that Obama has a combined personal and variety of political ideological tendencies of only types of governance that have failed and ruined other countries and will ruin ours. This is why it is so difficult to pigeon hole him into one political description.

And Kunndi – it is not a simple political spectrum line, not by a long shot. It has changed over time (thanks to the progressives) as well as our so called representatives doing their best to blurr the lines by their actions. We know what the definitions are, but when you add corruption to any faction their actions will not remain within that controlled definition and you have to admit; American politics has never been more indescribable or more corrupt since it’s inception.

We will have to invent a totally new word to describe the actions of this president, but one adjective we can place on it right now is BIG GVT and what we can say it is not is a Republic because the only part to “Of the people, by the people and for the people” that applies anymore is the useful idiots, the non-productive majority realizes their vote gives themselves handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate that will provide them with the most benefits from the public treasury. So yes, when the burden of having a welfare state overwhelms the very system that support them is when you will open your freaking stupid eyes to understand any of what is truly happening.

So keep arguing over Dems vs Repubs, as if it matters. What you want to call it is meaningless because at the end of the day the word doesn’t matter – just the actions. You either agree to big gvt making all your decisions or you don’t. The bigger it gets, the less freedom you have. The more power it steals for itself, the less opportunity you have to succeed and the smaller the middle class becomes. These are facts you cannot deny.

Not all of us agree that the money is being spent well. Its not about hating Obama. He’s an intelligent, charismatic, well-intentioned guy. The trouble is we already do take care of the disadvantaged. We have been for a long time. What more should we really be doing and why? This isn’t even a D vs. R issue anymore since they both expand the government like crazy. Fascism and communism are more related than you realize…they both are all about state control. Some of us genuinely want the government out of the way both socially and economically. If we need to throw people a few bones to prevent them from starving to death, fine, I’m willing to do that, but don’t act like people who contribute nothing to society are getting short-changed. Let me know when you have climate change and all of the other problems you speak of tackled. It’ll make us both very rich. Sometimes pointing out obvious problems isn’t enough…you have to actually come up with realistic, workable, long-term solutions. Aren’t we still torturing people? Isn’t the PATRIOT act in full effect? How’s Guantanomo Bay doing? Are poor people any better off? At least prices are rising due to the quantitative easing. Call Barry whatever you want, I just seem him as another statist, like his predecessor. They are more similar in more ways than the blind ideolouges on either side seems to want to admit.

President Obama is not a socialist. If you were to contact the socialist parties none of them would consider him a socialist.

Uplifting the the middle class does not make one a socialist.

Neither does supporting taxing the rich at an equal percentage rate as the middle class. Theirs two tax systems in this country, you know it, I know it. Those who work for their wages, and those who invest.

Socialist campaign themes, is just another talking point from the propoganda machine.

To force a woman to have a child. To force a woman to have an unneeded and unwanted medical procedure. Not allow certain people to get married. Demonize groups of people. Allow police to stop and ask people for proof of citizenship. Allow infinite detention of a US citizen without due process.

The Democrats want: A woman to have the right to have sex irresponsibly, then force Republicans to pay her abortion or contraception. If you want to have sex and abortions, then pay for it yourself. Is it just to FORCE someone to pay for something that they violates their conscience and beliefs?

To make conservatives accept values that are contrary to their beliefs, such as gay marriage. And to allow people whom conservatives deem immoral to teach their children values.

Demonize certain groups of people like Christians, conservatives and Jews.

Do not believe in the rule of law and that laws apply to everyone. They believe that those who break the law such be a protected class, such as illegal immigrants.

Allow indefinite detention of US citizen without due process (Obama’s executive order).

Believe that the rights of some citizens (capitalists) should be sacrificed so that others can have their “rights” to the property and money of the capitalists, thereby driving capitalists out of the country or out of business. They believe that making one class of citizens (rich)subservient to another (poor) by force results in “equality”.

Believe that it is alright to violate freedom of speech if free speech expresses a different belief system or ideology.

I find it really funny that you seem to think that ONLY Democrats have sex freely and have abortions. I won’t even comment on the rest of your nonsense because I refuse to waste my intelligence on someone who is just NOT worth it! I rather spend my time talking gaga goo-goo to a baby and I don’t even have kids.